|
||||||||
Titanic - New Evidence C4. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lancashire, N. England
Posts: 4,706
|
Quote:
This is a part of the Titanic story that's been kind of lost until now so it's really not a feeble theory at all. The fire meant the burning coal was shovelled into the furnaces quicker than intended, which meant the ship was travelling at top whack rather than at a steady speed. There's always been a bit of confusion as to why the ship was going so fast and this solves that. . I've always thought the best captains were risk averse and my own humble opinion, uneducated and perhaps slightly ignorant as it is, has always been that if Bruce Ismay hadn't been aboard captain Smith would have adopted a more southerly track and taken maybe a day extra to reach port. I just have a feeling that businessman Ismay, influenced by the financial rewards and headlines of a faster crossing and also his own hype of building an 'unsinkable' liner may have directly or indirectly encouraged Smith to take the faster more risky route. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 949
|
In the movie, Jack and Rose run through the boiler rooms earlier in the voyage and I don't remember seeing any unusual fire in that scene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
Great post Gary, yes that theory of "they went at top speed as they were short of coal" confused me too & I agree with everything else you posted except for "the Olympic class ships were badly designed, badly built and badly sailed" surely the ships were an engineering wonders of their time, the Olympic being proof of that with a long successful career of 24 years.
The really bad feature of their operation was that no consideration was given to the question of manoeuverability with such a large ship. The practice of running at full speed in poor conditions was excused as being normal practice. Well it may have been normal practice in 20,000 ton ships travelling at 15 knots, but to do so in a 45,000 ton ship travelling at 22 knots was simply reckless. But, as I pointed out before, the Olympic class ships had no reserve speed so could not afford to slow down, unlike the Lusitania and her sister which could reach 26 knots if needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Central ATV
Posts: 449
|
Quote:
In the movie, Jack and Rose run through the boiler rooms earlier in the voyage and I don't remember seeing any unusual fire in that scene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,692
|
I thought the documentary implied that the ship was running at full speed because they had to stoke the furnaces with burning coal to stop the fire. rather than because they were running out of coal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 396
|
Quote:
It was a movie based on the Titanic story so much of it was fiction
Spoiler
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,703
|
Quote:
I saw a documentary fronted by Gary Wallace a few years back that mooted a theory that Titanic was actually "Olympic" which had been badly damaged in a collision with a Royal Navy vessel
https://theunredacted.com/titanic-co...at-never-sank/ If the Titanic sinking was indeed an "insurance job", then setting sail with coal bunkers on fire would be an obvious thing to do to assist in the "accident" As per usual 'follow the money'. Look at who pulled out of the trip just beforehand (especially the major bankers). Then look at who died (especially more major bankers). The difference is the ones who pulled out backed the creation of the Federal Reserve (private bank, i.e. interest debt control of the government ) and the ones who were opposed sailed and died. Couple that with an insurance job and the fire sounds like an almost necessary part of the set-up. Even if not true it fits the narrative they needed. New evidence? My hairy baboon's bum! Same thing with JFK - he started to issue national GOVERNMENT (not private bankster) backed debt-free currency (amongst other things like warning the public of the shadowy hand running the US and aiming to restrict the CIA, and looking at removing Hoover from the FBI). Result? Head blown off. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,715
|
I have a question. Was it common knowledge amongst the general public or those who travelled by sea then, that most liners had coal fires when they sailed? I wonder how many people would have got off had a repeated announcement been made in Southampton by loudspeaker that a fire was raging in the coal bunkers which was proving difficult to put out. I'd have certainly disembarked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,038
|
Quote:
I thought the documentary implied that the ship was running at full speed because they had to stoke the furnaces with burning coal to stop the fire. rather than because they were running out of coal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Craigavon, Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,373
|
Quote:
I saw a documentary fronted by Gary Wallace a few years back that mooted a theory that Titanic was actually "Olympic" which had been badly damaged in a collision with a Royal Navy vessel
https://theunredacted.com/titanic-co...at-never-sank/ If the Titanic sinking was indeed an "insurance job", then setting sail with coal bunkers on fire would be an obvious thing to do to assist in the "accident" Also the whole "fire" thing was known about all long. This is not new evidence at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,692
|
Quote:
Also the whole "fire" thing was known about all long. This is not new evidence at all.
The 'new' evidence may explain why the ship was running at full steam and why the hull was weaker than usual. If the ship had not set sail with a weakened hull, had not been running at full steam it might have survived the trip. All things that might have only happened because of the coal fire. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,839
|
Originally Posted by koantemplation I thought the documentary implied that the ship was running at full speed because they had to stoke the furnaces with burning coal to stop the fire. rather than because they were running out of coal? Quote:
That was my understanding as well.
Not all the boilers would have been in use. Using all the boilers would not safely increase the top speed. They could have fed the burning coal into those not being used and closed the dampers. If you restrict the air to the fire, it will burn less quickly. Or they could have fed it to several being used but partly close the dampers to slow the rate of combustion, if the shortage of coal were the problem. The reason for traveling at full speed was just to keep on schedule. Not because they were running out of coal. Cruising at a slower speed would have consumed less fuel, same as in a car. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,481
|
Of course there was a massive cover up by the White Star line management .
I never knew there was a fire on board the Titanic as it was being launched . Would the passengers have boarded the liner knowing there was a fire in part of the ship, of course not . The White Star line management under Ismay and the captain Smith are to blame for the deaths of all those who lost their lives in that ill fated voyage . |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,003
|
Quote:
The White Star line management under Ismay and the captain Smith are to blame for the deaths of all those who lost their lives in that ill fated voyage . |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,024
|
Quote:
That was my understanding as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,171
|
Quote:
It doesn't really explain why she didn't alter south in an attempt to avoid a sea area where there were active ice warnings.
I've always thought the best captains were risk averse and my own humble opinion, uneducated and perhaps slightly ignorant as it is, has always been that if Bruce Ismay hadn't been aboard captain Smith would have adopted a more southerly track and taken maybe a day extra to reach port. I just have a feeling that businessman Ismay, influenced by the financial rewards and headlines of a faster crossing and also his own hype of building an 'unsinkable' liner may have directly or indirectly encouraged Smith to take the faster more risky route. The new significance of the fire is in relation to the sinking itself, after the iceberg hit. Without the fire, the ship should've stayed afloat long enough for other ships to reach it and rescue pretty much everyone on board. Because of the damage caused by the fire, the water burst through into a section flood water was not meant to go. This had a knock on effect of tipping the front of the ship downwards which caused more water to enter, which caused more tipping forward and eventually the ship sinking quicker than anyone expected or planned for in any event. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,839
|
Quote:
I thought they meant that if they had let the furnaces die down and thus reduce speed they wouldn't have enough coal to stoke them up again to get to New York on time which was vital as it was the maiden journey.
The whole of the bunkers weren't likely on fire, but they had to remove all the coal to put the fires out. Also it wasn't "vital," to arrive on time. They had a good reason not to....Icebergs....Just a bad decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,547
|
Quote:
There's a lot of circumastantial evidence for this. The Olympic was indeed damaged. The ridiculous tortuously late 'rescue' attempt is highly suspect imho.
As per usual 'follow the money'. Look at who pulled out of the trip just beforehand (especially the major bankers). Then look at who died (especially more major bankers). The difference is the ones who pulled out backed the creation of the Federal Reserve (private bank, i.e. interest debt control of the government ) and the ones who were opposed sailed and died. Only a few of the "no shows" were explicable - Pik Botha the South African foreign minister had reservations on several flights, and IIRC was it Kool and the Gang or "The Pips" (Gladys Knights backing singers) who were in a recording session that over ran. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 604
|
I am very surprised the programme didn't claim Lee Harvey Oswald was steering the ship when it hit the iceberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,839
|
Quote:
I am very surprised the programme didn't claim Lee Harvey Oswald was steering the ship when it hit the iceberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 396
|
Quote:
It was Captain Haddock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,839
|
Quote:
so thats why they'd had their chips?
Know your plaice! |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:33.


